1. The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P10 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, [DRT-II] Ernakulam, in I.A.No.1556/2017 in S.A.No.132/2017. The facts in the original petition would indicate that, on being served with a possession notice by the respondent bank, the petitioners approached the Tribunal through the aforementioned S.A. challenging the step taken by the respondent bank. Along with the S.A., the petitioners had filed two interlocutory applications, namely, I.A.Nos.839/2017 and 840/2017. I.A.No.839/2017 was one that was filed seeking a stay of further proceedings pursuant to the possession notice that was impugned in the S.A. I.A.No.840/2017 was one that was preferred seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to report on the nature of the property that was being proceeded against by the respondent bank, with the contention of the petitioners being that the property was essentially agricultural in nature, and, therefore, the bank could not proceed against the said property under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter refer